Memory Alpha:Ten Forward/Archive 2004
nl:Memory Alpha:Ten Forward de:Memory Alpha:Zehn Vorne MP3 versus OGG I'm raising this issue because it's come up on Talk:Yesterday's Enterprise. The problem is which format to use for sound bytes that are stored on Memory Alpha. The MP3 format is much more common, but it is encumbered by patent issues that make it a non-free format. The Ogg Vorbis (OGG) format, on the other hand, is completely open and free, but it's much less well known. Personally, I couldn't care less about patent issues. Although it would be nice to be able to stick to the OGG format and remain a truly "free" reference source, I believe it's impractical at the present time to force everyone to use that format, especially considering the state of browser support for it (or the complete lack thereof). Using MP3's would be much more straightforward, IMO. -- Dan Carlson 14:59, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) :There's also the matter of size constraints. The clip I uploaded yesterday, I also have in MP3 format. It is twice the size for about the same quality level. I went with OGG because that was the format agreed to on Wikipedia, and their arguments made sense. But, if you want, I can go back and put them in as MP3s. -- Michael Warren 16:26, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) Well, don't change it just yet. Let's get some input first. (Also, I didn't realize that OGG had such good compression rates!) -- Dan Carlson 16:34, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I can't open .OGG files with either Real One Player or Windows Media Player. Ottens 17:26, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) There are some plugins available for the OGG format — for WMP, use http://tobias.everwicked.com/, and for QuickTime, use http://qtcomponents.sourceforge.net/. -- Dan Carlson 17:58, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) Perhaps I could/should do a better job summarizing the opposing viewpoints as they've been expressed on Wikipedia. The supporters of Ogg Vorbis point out that the MP3 encoder is patented and someone has to pay for the license to use that encoder or decoder. That means that any content contained in MP3 format is essentially NOT free, and therefore contradicts the purest sense of Wikipedia as a free (open-content) encyclopedia. The same could be argued to apply to Memory Alpha as an open-content Trek reference source. Supporters of the MP3 format argue that OGG is still so obscure that it makes listening to OGG-encoded sounds difficult at best. They claim that the MP3 format is so widespread that it's essentially free for individual use anyway. So, on top of the issue of ease of listening to clips, we're also stuck with the question of whether sounds in MP3 format are actually free or not. Despite the official policy, it seems that even Wikipedia hasn't quite answered this question yet. -- Dan Carlson 18:27, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: What I'd like to now is who holds the patent on MP3. Microsoft? -- Redge 16:37, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) No, Microsoft holds the copyright on the WMA/WMV file formats for their Windows Media Player. I forget who holds the patents for MP3... the Wikipedia:MP3 article states both Thompson Institute and something called Fraunhofer. -- Dan Carlson 19:21, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::: Some german Fraunhofer Institute invented MP3 during mid 1990's. Regarding the licensing, this only affects software which converts to MP3 or plays MP3. Simple storing MP3 won't be licensed – at least not to Thomson or Fraunhofer. Besides this I would rather give OGG a chance because it's better in important key features. -- Florian K 00:00, 17 Jun 2004 (CEST) Any other questions/arguments can be given here. Final Vote MP3 vs. OGG * Support OGG -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) ---- Paragraph end references I wish people would pay more attention to in-line references... They make an article so much beter te read. With in-line references, you can determine where info came from and if you're interested, you can take a look at the episode the info was derived from. People seem to be increasingly ignoring this style. Some people still add references to their articles, but they are at the end and there is no way to determine (as a reader) where all the information came from. Like every good scientific papaer, I think our articles should also adhere to the necessity of in-line references! -- Redge 21:52, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Really? I personally find inline references ruin the flow of an article, intruding into the POV, so I don't want to include them unless necessary or suitable (eg, at the end of a paragraph or section as a whole, not midway through.) -- Michael Warren 22:54, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Pardon me, that's what I meant. At the end of the paragraph, instead of all at the end of the article (or end of section if all info came from one source). -- Redge 23:06, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) Perhaps we could feature the rule that people are supposed to add references to their articles (paragraph-end or articleend), so people can determine the source for the information, a bit better. Maybe people are unaware of the rule, since it not as implicit as canon-policy etc.. I see more and more increasingly that they are being left out of articles, mostly by unregistered or new members. -- Redge 12:02, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Sometimes, I just don't know from which episode or movie something is, so I think it's too much asked to demand references to be added. Of course, references are always fine... Ottens 12:43, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I don't think they should be demanded right away, but after several members have viewed and reviewed the page, and especially in pages that are nominated for featured, you should expect to find references. It is given as a point in the perfect article as well. A good article is well-documented. -- Redge 13:43, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: Remember also that perfection is not required. IMO, while I would definitely prefer that all articles be given references from the very beginning, I don't believe it's an absolute requirement. It's just something that needs to be added in later on by copyediting members. (I know, sometimes it's difficult to get used to the incompleteness of the wiki system...) -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::I don't think it should be made mandatory, but the suggestion that it is a good addition should be featured a bit more obvious. -- Redge 11:33, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST) On the same subject: We have a toolbar atop the editing box which can be used for italics, bold, link, etc.. Could we include Reference there as well? For example, the text that would appear in the copy box could be: ( Series: "Episode"). -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Also, a button producing the text: [[USS Name|USS Name]] would greatly increase efficiency, as Seven would put it. Where to place msg:featured Redge, I think this message should be placed on the article page itself (just like all other messages), not that article's talk page. Otherwise a good idea to 'clean up' a bit, thanks. :) -- Cid Highwind 12:25, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :If you were going to place it on the page itself, I advice on the bottom of the page, so that it is not annoying for the readers. That's why placing it on the Talk page might be a good idea? Ottens 12:44, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Virtually all important messages are placed on the top of the article page - a small two-line note in a box can't be that annoying, can it? Placing it on the talk page doesn't make much sense in my opinion - all these messages are meant to inform casual readers about the status of that article, while the idea of a talk page is to discuss the article in detail (= for interested contributors) - those two functions don't mix that well... -- Cid Highwind 12:52, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Yes, but I just said I'' would rather place it on the bottom of the article, as it only informs you that it's a Featured Article, and doesn't add anything useful to the ''content itself. Ottens 13:05, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) I moved this discussion from my talk page to 10F, so everyone can give their thoughts. I'll just leave the messages as they are now untill we have rached a conclusion here. I think the Talk page would be better suited. You don't want to interupt readers with info that isn't relevant to the article itself. Alternatively, bottom of page will do as well. -- Redge 13:30, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: I think that the talk page is the best place. It doesn't clutter up the main article itself, but it still keeps the information available. After all, the list of featured articles itself is linked to from the main page... -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :: I'd rather have it on the actual page, top or bottom, than the Talk page. The article's status should have attention called to it in som way, and putting a notice on a different page doesn't really do that. --Steve 20:06, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Well, let's talk about the purpose of that message... what is the target audience (so to speak) of it? If it is the group of Readers/Users it has to be placed on the page itself - I guess those guys rarely read talk pages. If it is the group of Contributors/Editors, it doesn't have to be the article page, but in that case, the message might be completely unnecessary - if I have something to contribute to an article, I'm not really interested in its status. Summary: Use it on the article page, or don't use it at all :) -- Cid Highwind 16:55, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::I think he bottom of the article page, or the top of the talk page are the two most sensible choices, listed in the order i prefer them. we don't need much more disruption than this will offer--Captain Mike K. Bartel Bottom it is then? -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Notes The Excelsior class articles has a lot of notes. Currently they are given in-line, indented and italicized. I think that this clutters up the page in a most obtrusive way. I think it shouldn't be to difficult to come up with a notes system that is both easy to access and non-obtrusive. I suggested this format, but Michael correctly commented that this would not be easy to access for people who want to read these notes. I later discovered, by the way, that they can be easily read by simple clicking the note link, reading the note, and hitting your browser's back button. But if anyone can come up with a better ystem, I would welcome the suggeston. -- Redge 13:49, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I like that, but it's easier to just put the notes all on the bottom of the page, along with References and Background Information. See Defiant class. Ottens 15:12, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :: I strongly feel that the inline notes should be kept the way they are in the Excelsior article. The main reason for this is because we want to keep things as simple as possible. So what if it's a little more obtrusive? It's still the most straightforward way of doing notes, and that's what wikis are about -- simplicity. -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: I may add, that I first didn't notice that all the notes (which I usually prefer over the content itself) were tiny little numbers. So I would include the notes in main body of the text again. However alternativly one can use another system of applying notes: 1 but I don't know how that might conflict with wikilinks -- Kobi 19:59, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::: I can see that. How about the system I use, but in stead of superscript notes we use 1? -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Copyright of actor images I guess the copyright of most of these images (one recent example: Image:Malcolm McDowell.jpg) does not belong to Paramount, but to some other organization/agency/whatever... Does someone know more about this? If I'm guessing correctly, the copyright disclaimer on those pages needs to be checked/changed. -- Cid Highwind 13:35, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) Also, do we really need/want to have separate 'actor images', or would it suffice to re-use the character image? -- Cid Highwind 13:38, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) :In some cases, I don't think a seperate actor image is necessary. However, often the actors looks different (older) then their played characters. See, for example Nichelle Nichols. Also, actors could have had multiple appearences/looks on Trek, so an actor image is often useful. Ottens 13:39, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::I think that maybe we should try to use a rule of thumb of only including actor images from performers who are obscured by makeup, or appear drastically different off the set in some way. I've been flabbergasted by the continuous influx of images to this site lately, I'm anticipating that there is going to be a lot of unnecessary images to delete based on the mass uploads i've been observing. --Captain Mike K. Bartel ::Hmm... perhaps we should only include images of actors if they just look different from their first appearence on Star Trek. See William Shatner, for example. Though I would hate to remove Marina Sirtis's image. :P Ottens 16:12, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) :::I think we should have a few rules of thumb. *''main series'' cast members and regular recurring cast members - yes *actors who are completely obscured by makeup - yes *''celebrities'' who did a cameo - yes *less than regular recurring characters & guest stars - no :::Still, take care with these images. I think many of these actor images don't have as much relevance, as say, a still from a Trek production, and therefore should not be uploaded as large size pictures for enlarging. 200px will do fine for most all of these shots, especially since they are from non-paramount sources and presenting large gallery images is not our bag, baby -- Captain Mike K. Bartel I agree with Mike's suggestion, because I think actors will allways look different out of character, make-up or not. In a sense they are two different persons. I know we have to watch our memory, but I think in this case an exception is warranted. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Race vs. Species Both terms are used regularly on MA - should we try to concentrate on one of them? The term race (IMO) is incorrect and has a rather negative connotation, so I'd prefer to use species instead. What do you think? -- Cid Highwind 16:55, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) *Support "species," for all reasons listed. perhaps a policy in our writing area? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel *I agree. The appropriate term should be mentioned in the relevant policies. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Characters without names Should we define a naming convention for characters without names. As we research more and more, we find things like recurring extras or even speaking roles of characters who were not canonically named, in dialogue nor in script. could we do *USS Voyager chief medical officer or something of the like, or deny him his own article and leave him in some other article's body.. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:54, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST) On this matter, I highly disagree with the title Future guy. Sounds very cheesy to me. -- Redge 11:33, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST) :I've done a couple articles on nameless characters: Xindi-Primate councilor and the like. It should probably depend on how much info there is on an unnamed character; USS Voyager chief medical officer works for me. :As far as Future Guy goes, I've never liked that term for MA, since it doesn't seem to be in-universe like this site puports to me. Usually when I reference him in articles I use the term Suliban benefactor, sometimes Silik's master from the future. --Steve 15:55, 19 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::I believe the name Future Guy (or Futureguy) is used in the scripts. Not canon, I know, but these fan names for characters in Sci-Fi shows often get used on screen eventually. Alex Peckover 14:56, Jul 21, 2004 (CEST) Maybe there is no generic policie, but the appropriate title should be discussed here. If the article in question is already written, it should be moved. For the doctor: I can abide with USS Voyager chief medical officer (Joe alternatively). For the man from the future: Suliban benefactor sounds like a very good idea to me. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Production and the fans I think a timeline of Star Trek production should be added to Memory Alpha. This should include more backround information about the history of Star Trek in production. We also need more information about the history of the fandom. *Timeline of Star Trek production has been created. :) *Articles like NBC; Doug Drexler; Franz Joseph; Bjo Trimble; Trekkies; comics should all be looked at, and the history of Trek production has a lot of fandom events involved, as there has been very active fan influence to the shows and films over the decades, so we can add fandom happenings that influenced production into the new list. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 10:11, 19 Jul 2004 (CEST) I realy could care less about this info, and I don't know a thing about it, but I do agree with you there should be good info available on MA. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST)